Comments on: Can You Do Anything About MLS Rules You Don’t Like?http://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/
Helping Real Estate Photographers Be SuccessfulThu, 14 Dec 2017 02:09:12 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1By: Ken Brownhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-850954
Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:20:43 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-850954@Kat, Nearly every MLS uses the same or very similar boilerplate rules and regulations. Every one I have seen forbids any watermarking of images, graphical (non-photo) images, broker/agent signage, etc although enforcement of those rules will vary. In my local area, there were many images with yard signs in the front exterior (required) photos. Recently, the Real Estate Association has been cracking down and sending notices to brokers which has had my clients calling and emailing to have me put a “coat of paint” on images with their signs showing. The rules allow for fines for a second or further offense within a certain time period. Without a re-read of the rules I am going to say that they use the phrase “may fine the broker/agent” with the operative word being “may” to give themselves some wiggle room. I believe that several violations lead to a suspension which is worse than just getting fined. A suspended listing agent or office is going to have a harder time marketing properties.

Once or twice a year some franchiser tries to get it’s franchisees to inflict a WFH or copyright transfer agreement on photographers. If I was able to charge $200/image for the most bland home, I’d consider signing but at $10/image I’m not interested in the least. Secondary licensing is heating the house during the slow winter months and I have high hopes of it paying for groceries too this year.

Nearly every photographer that earns a substantial portion of their annual income shooting real estate is not going to sign. Certainly not if they’re any good. Perhaps the offices will be successful in getting the $30 for 60 photo photographer advertising on Craigslist to agree. The best tactic is to say no politely. If you are giving great service and providing good images, they’re likely to be back before too long.

]]>By: Michael Allenhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-850712
Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:26:29 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-850712@Kat Frankovic
I’m with you on this…. They (Chicago area MLS) just today sent out a notice of a change requiring agents to click a checkbox affirming that they have permission before uploading photos and videos to the MLS. Their explanatory video refers to the NAR templates that seem to assign (transfer) ownership rather than simply give permission, so are not acceptable.

I penned this response to the MLS video:

“You correctly explain the need for permission to use copyrighted material. However, the NAR template document you refer to does not simply give permission for a license to use copyrighted photos or videos, it transfers the copyright, giving all rights and ownership of the work to the broker — as a “work for hire”. To paraphrase the doc: “Broker and Sales Licensee intend that all photographs … shall be the property of Broker and a contribution to a collective work consisting of Listing Content of all Broker’s sales licensees. ”

No professional photographer will sign such a document. We grant a license to use our work for the single purpose of marketing a particular property by a particular agent and brokerage. This covers syndication, but not use by third party vendors for other uses such as promoting other business ventures not related to the marketing of that property.

Perhaps you can refer to a different document that gives a limited license (permission) to use copyrighted material but not a total assignment of the copyright and ownership.

Perhaps you might consider changing the MLS rules and regulations that still (the last time I looked) require that ownership of IP material be transferred to the broker.”

Let’s see if they respond.

]]>By: Kat Frankovichttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-850610
Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:56:36 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-850610@Michael Allen, we are in the same market. Have you and other photographers been presented with this “Photographer Agreement” by clients that they say the MLS requires us to sign? I have had a unwritten agreement with my clients for years that they have full usage rights for the photos they pay for, but I retain the copyright so that I may use them for my own personal advertising only. I have never given photos to an agent or brokerage who didn’t originally pay for them or have permission from the original agent. This agreement is a 100% rights grab and I feel very uncomfortable about giving away full rights to my work. Technically I would have to request permission from each brokerage to use a image on my website.

I have also been adding a watermark on web sized images for a few months now, but have had no complaints from clients or the MLS. Could my clients get fined if they use these images? I have no problem removing it but I see a lot of other photographers and companies doing it too.

]]>By: Ken Brownhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-793345
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 22:03:53 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-793345@Michael Allen, It appears that the MLS is fixing a gross error in their wording rather than making a change to the photo requirements. The original draft of their rules may have claimed copyright on the images posted to their service which isn’t valid. I’ve seen that in a couple of MLS rules, but I personally ignore it since they don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s still going to be good to join the local real estate association.

I’d love to be able to put a small watermark on my images and my clients would rather nobody else know who I am so I remain their secret weapon.

]]>By: Michael Allenhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-792218
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 02:33:17 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-792218Note that VHT, the US national RE photo & VT service that recently won $8.3M in its lawsuit against Zillow, always watermarks its photos with a copyright notice — at least here in the northern Illinois MLS. I always assumed they did the same in other markets. The posts above, indicate differently?

My MLS (northern IL – Chicago area) does have rules that indicate that they think my photos and my copyright, belong to the agent and the brokerage that has the listings. I, and others, have complained about this wording and they have acknowledged this as a problem that they are working on to fix in the next iteration of their rules.

So, sometimes you CAN generate change from the “outside”.

]]>By: George Bellacehttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-791916
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 22:19:49 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-791916Our local MLS has plenty of guidelines… and I follow them. One is that there can be NO ADVERTISING in the photos. Not a business, not a realtor sign and especially not the photographer watermark protecting the greatest image of a two bedroom bungalow ever captured. Any violation of that rule and the Realtor gets fined $500.

How is fighting the rules of the MLS a smart business move? They can refuse to host any image they want… it’s their site.

What benefit is it to you to put your copyright info on the image? That’s just advertising. Do what the rest of us do… embed metadata and submit ALL your works to the Copyright Office. Every single mundane image that I create is routinely submitted for copyrights. It’s $55 for one image or 30 million images. Furthermore, a copyright watermark means nothing in a court of law. Taht would be like me putting my copyright info on an Ansel Adams image… but he still has the US Copyright proof. All you are doing is making enemies and losing business.

]]>By: Brandon Vhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-791597
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:05:08 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-791597Regarding the copyright watermark, you are not required to watermark your photos in order to preserve your copyright. In addition to Larry’s advice, which I believe is correct (I highly doubt you will ever get the MLS to concede on allowing your watermark on the photos), there is no legal precedent that requires public displays of copyrighted works to have a watermark in order to preserve copyright protection. The best way you can preserve your rights is to make sure your contract specifies that it is NOT a Work Made for Hire. This is not required as the only way for you to sign away your copyright is to do so in writing, but it certainly helps solidify the understanding you have with the agent, so they can’t later argue that there wasn’t a “meeting of the minds” if you end up in court for their non-payment.

Which brings us to, no, you cannot have people arrested for non-payment. Debtors’ prison was left back in the days of Charles Dickens. You can contract with a collection agency that will generally charge about 25 percent of whatever they collect, or you could try small claims court. If your contract has a clause that allows either party to compel binding arbitration, be aware that sometimes this can be more expensive than going to court. If your contract specifies that the usage license is granted only upon payment in full, you could issue DMCA takedown notices and/or pursue an infringement action, but that is basically the “nuclear” option and could garner an unfavorable reputation in your market.

I’m not an attorney and can’t give legal advice, but I think your best bet is to stop trying to single-handedly change the expectations and requirements of an entire MLS board. Unless their rules require that the agent “own” the copyright, or worse, that the copyright actually transfers to the MLS, then it sounds like their only argument is with your watermark.

Quit your whining and do business under their rules. They are not laws (that govern your behavior, they have laws that govern the Realtors behavior) they are rules and they are their rules. You have to play by their rules. They are not hard rules.

If you do not confront them and follow their rules they will ignore you. You will make money.

Perhaps today some people feel there should be no rules and they can do what they want and chose what rules to follow or not. That’s a bad attitude.

It’s stupid to believe you can win that one. You won’t. Move on and pick your battles very carefully the next time. Get the chip off you shoulder, that I suspect is there, and your will see more rainbows in your life.

Copyright is a property right.
Just because you buy a print does not mean you have purchased the copyright.
Professional photographers are the smallest of small copyright holders.
Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation.
Photographers have the exclusive right to reproduce their photographs (right to control the making of copies). Copyright
Unless you have permission from the photographer, you can’t copy, distribute (no scanning and sending them to others), publicly display (no putting them online), or create derivative works from photographs.
A photographer can easily create over 20,000 separate pieces of intellectual property annually.
Professional photographers are dependent on their ability to control the reproduction of the photographs they create.
It affects their income and the livelihood of their families.
Even small levels of infringement—copying a photo without permission—can have a devastating impact on a photographer’s ability to make a living.
Copyright infringements—reproducing photos without permission—can result in civil and criminal penalties.

]]>By: Trevor Wardhttp://photographyforrealestate.net/2017/04/05/can-you-do-anything-about-mls-rules-you-dont-like/comment-page-1/#comment-790819
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:46:29 +0000http://photographyforrealestate.net/?p=24672#comment-790819Collect money up front. No one objects to my policy that I have been using for almost a year. (I started this policy after having several clients either go out of business or just decide they didn’t want to pay or took forever to pay. No more).

If you feel your name is being sullied and you have proof (audio recordings or emails, etc.) and you can prove damages, HIRE A LAWYER. If you’re doing something wrong, according to their terms of service, (like watermarks on the images) perhaps you should stop. I’m not sure from your explanation what their beef is with you. If they are going after you so hard, you must have done something to piss them off. I feel like you’re not telling us the whole story.